Claim form DCB legal

Daniel_3560

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant paid the correct parking fee and there was no breach by conduct. There is no cause of action. This charge attempts to penalise the Defendant, who bought a ticket for three hours. Evidence supporting this claim will be provided in the Defendant's witness statement.The machine was malfunctioning and would only accept the first letter of the registration. Registration plate is not a valid or lawful justification to penalise motorists. There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a motorist for a mere typo. 

6.  The Defendant asserts that the ticket machine was faulty at that time, causing a discrepancy between the purchased ticket and the vehicle registration mark (VRM). Despite the Defendant's best endeavours, a repeated malfunction in the machine led to the parking charge and this fault lies with the Claimant.

7.  There is a statutory test of fairness that courts must apply (s71 Consumer Rights Act 2015).  There are issues that render this parking charge to be unfair, out of all proportion and purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad (at a site where the system has already recorded the correct VRM via ANPR, thus the system is capable of presenting the driver with the full VRM as soon as he or she starts to type) is unfairly weighted against consumers.  This is just the type of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court held would not save a claim from falling foul of the penalty rule, which was said to be 'engaged' in all parking cases.

(b). This unfairness specifically breaches the CRA 2015 and it is why (in the incoming statutory Code of Practice) the DLUHC has banned parking charges from being pursued for 'keypad errors' and also requires human checks to avoid unfair PCNs.  The Government takes the view that the machine should be linked to the ANPR so that it is impossible to buy a ticket without the full registration. There is no commercial justification, fairness or justice in knowingly issuing PCNs for VRM 'errors' which actually arise from system glitches that print error codes or partial VRMs instead of the information drivers try to type into a (typically old and sticky) keypad.

I have used the Chan case also, the above was taken from @Coupo@Coupon-mad from a similar situation to mine involving a keypad error.

Coupon-mad

Daniel_3560 said:

Hi all please see updated POC

The Chan case isn't suited to these POC.

Daniel_3560

Coupon-mad said:

Daniel_3560 said:

Hi all please see updated POC

The Chan case isn't suited to these POC.

Is what I have wrote okay to use without the chan case ? 

Daniel_3560

@Coupon-mad will it be likely I loose this without the chan case ? 

Le_Kirk

You don't need nor can you use Chan nor Akande because the POC are specific.  Your defence is specifically a faulty keypad, over which you as the motorist/defendant have no control.

Daniel_3560

Le_Kirk said:

You don't need nor can you use Chan nor Akande because the POC are specific.  Your defence is specifically a faulty keypad, over which you as the motorist/defendant have no control.

Okay great is my defence okay to email over ? Is there anything that needs amending ? 

1505grandad

"(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad...."

Make sure any copy & paste is relevant to your case.

Coupon-mad

Daniel_3560 said:

@Coupon-mad will it be likely I loose this without the chan case ? 

No you'll win as long as you follow all our advice for all stages.  Probably without any hearing because DCB Legal discontinue before hearings, as you know from reading the famous thread by @Umkomaas

Your defence is very good except the paragraph numbering. What you showed us is paragraph 2 onwards within the normal Template Defence.  Not paragraph 4 onwards.

  

Daniel_3560

Thanks everyone for the brilliant responses really helpful I've updated the numbering shown below @Coupon-mad
Just to confirm I email this to CNBC@justice.gov.uk?

3. The Defendant paid the correct parking fee and there was no breach by conduct. There is no cause of action. This charge attempts to penalise the Defendant, who bought a ticket for three hours. Evidence supporting this claim will be provided in the Defendant's witness statement.The machine was malfunctioning and would only accept the first letter of the registration. Registration plate is not a valid or lawful justification to penalise motorists. There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a motorist for a mere typo. 

4.  The Defendant asserts that the ticket machine was faulty at that time, causing a discrepancy between the purchased ticket and the vehicle registration mark (VRM). Despite the Defendant's best endeavours, a repeated malfunction in the machine led to the parking charge and this fault lies with the Claimant.

5.  There is a statutory test of fairness that courts must apply (s71 Consumer Rights Act 2015).  There are issues that render this parking charge to be unfair, out of all proportion and purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(a). Placing the burden on the driver to input a full VRM on a notoriously faulty Excel Parking keypad (at a site where the system has already recorded the correct VRM via ANPR, thus the system is capable of presenting the driver with the full VRM as soon as he or she starts to type) is unfairly weighted against consumers.  This is just the type of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court held would not save a claim from falling foul of the penalty rule, which was said to be 'engaged' in all parking cases.

(b). This unfairness specifically breaches the CRA 2015 and it is why (in the incoming statutory Code of Practice) the DLUHC has banned parking charges from being pursued for 'keypad errors' and also requires human checks to avoid unfair PCNs.  The Government takes the view that the machine should be linked to the ANPR so that it is impossible to buy a ticket without the full registration. There is no commercial justification, fairness or justice in knowingly issuing PCNs for VRM 'errors' which actually arise from system glitches that print error codes or partial VRMs instead of the information drivers try to type into a (typically old and sticky) keypad.

LDast

Daniel_3560 said:

Just to confirm I email this to CNBC@justice.gov.uk?

Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!